Voters approved Lurie’s three charter changes. Here is what shifts at City Hall, and when

San Francisco voters backed Mayor Daniel Lurie’s Propositions D, E and F, which raise the bar for local ballot measures, give the city administrator more control over contracting and expand the mayor’s authority over departments, once the election is certified.

By Celia Marroquín

The three charter amendments Mayor Daniel Lurie billed as a plan to “clean up City Hall” are winning comfortably in the official count. In the Department of Elections’ report released at 4 p.m. Saturday, Proposition D led 171,598 to 141,677, or 54.8 percent to 45.2 percent; Proposition E led 198,470 to 110,807, or 64.2 percent to 35.8 percent; and Proposition F led 186,118 to 124,626, or 59.9 percent to 40.1 percent.

About 15,000 ballots remained, the department said. It had counted 332,467 ballots out of 535,608 registered voters, or 62.1 percent, and said it may take up to 30 days after Election Day to certify the results under state law. Charter amendments take effect after that certification, not on election night.

Mr. Lurie has described the package as a way to make City Hall more accountable and less tangled in process. He has argued that Proposition D would keep local ballots from becoming “alphabet soup” and reserve narrow fights for the Board of Supervisors. To critics who said a higher signature requirement would price grassroots campaigns out, he has answered that “it’s free to get six supervisors to put something on the ballot.” He has presented Proposition E as a way to simplify a contracting system spread across offices, and Proposition F as a way to give the city’s elected executive clearer authority over department heads.

“These victories are not a finish line, they are a starting point,” Mr. Lurie told supporters on Tuesday night in Hayes Valley, Mission Local reported. “San Franciscans tonight are giving us the tools to govern effectively … we are going to keep delivering — let’s go San Francisco.”

Progressive groups, including the Democratic Socialists of America and the League of Pissed Off Voters, opposed all three measures, arguing that they would entrench insider power rather than root it out, The San Francisco Standard reported. The official ballot pamphlet listed organized labor, Senior and Disability Action, United Educators of San Francisco, the San Francisco Women’s Political Committee, Indivisible SF and Coleman Advocates among the opponents of Proposition D.

Proposition D: a higher bar for the ballot

Proposition D was the closest of the three and the only one against which opponents raised a dedicated campaign treasury, collecting a little more than $200,000, the Standard reported. The Yes on D, E and F campaign raised $13.5 million from 54 donors as of the week before the election, the Standard said. Mission Local identified the largest backers as Michael Moritz ($3.1 million), Chris Larsen and Lyna Lam ($2.5 million) and John Pritzker ($1 million).

The measure raises the signature requirement for a local initiative from 2 percent of registered voters to 8 percent, a jump the official ballot question put at “about 10,600 to about 42,500” signatures. It also raises the requirements for calling a special election, allows a signature initiative to be withdrawn before an election, and removes the ability of a minority of supervisors, or of the mayor acting alone, to place a measure on the ballot. The Standard reported that it would take six supervisors, rather than four, to put a measure before voters, and that special elections and charter amendments would require signatures from 10 percent of registered voters.

Opponents said the new thresholds would favor well-financed campaigns. Working from an estimate of about $10 a signature, they argued that the cost of qualifying a measure would rise from about $200,000 to about $800,000. Neighborhood campaigns that have used signature drives for tenant, tax and public-power measures would need roughly four times as many valid signatures, or six supervisors willing to put the question to voters.

Proposition E: the city administrator and city contracts

Proposition E, the most lopsided of the three, gives the city administrator more authority by centralizing purchasing rules, changing how those rules are approved, changing when contracts and leases require Board of Supervisors approval, and extending the city administrator’s term. The pamphlet listed Mr. Lurie, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Board President Rafael Mandelman among the supporters, and Larry S. Marso as the opponent.

Mission Local reported that the measure raises the threshold for board approval of contracts from $10 million to $25 million. Supporters have said concentrating the rulebook in one office would save time and money on routine purchasing. The amendment does not award any particular contract; it changes who writes the rules and which deals must come to the board. A thicker band of city business will be handled further from the weekly chamber agenda.

Proposition F: who hires, fires and moves the work

Proposition F expands the mayor’s authority to transfer responsibilities between departments, hire deputy mayors, and hire some and fire most department heads. It also allows city officials to remove members of boards and commissions without cause. The pamphlet listed Mr. Lurie, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Mandelman, former Controller Ben Rosenfield and Firefighters Local 798 among the supporters, and Small Business Forward as the opponent.

Mr. Lurie has argued that the change would make the city’s leaders more accountable because the mayor would have clearer control over how departments are run. Opponents said it would concentrate too much authority in one office. The Standard reported that the planning organization SPUR, which urged caution on the measure, warned that the arrangement could prove disastrous in the case of an “ineffective or unprincipled mayor.”

In his election-night remarks, Mr. Lurie did not name department heads he intends to replace or commissions he intends to reorganize. He described the measures as tools. Analysts quoted by Mission Local said future failures will be harder to blame on a fragmented charter.

Until the department certifies the election — a process it said may take as long as 30 days after Nov. 3 — the current charter rules still govern ballot access, contract approvals and personnel decisions. After certification, the new thresholds and authorities become the city’s operating law. The mayor has said he now has the tools; opponents say they will be watching how he uses them.